4.4 Article

Between-hand coupling during response inhibition

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 4, Pages 1357-1366

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00310.2019

Keywords

human primary motor cortex; intracortical inhibition; movement preparation; response inhibition; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Response inhibition reflects the process of terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing movements. When one hand is cued to stop after preparing a bimanual response (Partial trial), there is a substantial delay on the responding side. This delay is termed the interference effect and identifies a constraint that limits selective response inhibition. gamma-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated networks within primary motor cortex (M1) may have distinct roles during response inhibition. In this study we examined whether the interference effect is the consequence of between-hand coupling into a unitary response and whether this is reflected in GABAergic intracortical inhibition within M1. Eighteen healthy right-handed participants performed a bimanual synchronous and asynchronous anticipatory response inhibition task. Electromyo-graphic recordings were obtained from the first dorsal interosseous muscle bilaterally. Motor evoked potentials were elicited by single-and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over right M1. As expected, Go trial performance was better with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous version of the task. Paradoxically, response delays during Partial trials were longer with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous task. Although task difficulty did not modulate GABAergic intracortical inhibition, there was a trend for between-hand coupling on asynchronous trials to be associated with greater GABA B receptor-mediated inhibition and lesser recruitment of GABA A receptor-mediated inhibition. The novel findings indicate that the interference effect is in part a consequence of between-hand coupling into a unitary response during movement preparation. The ability to respond independently with the two hands may rely on modulation of distinct inhibitory processes. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The temporal dynamics of an anticipated response task were manipulated to effect the difficulty of behavioral stopping and the underlying effects on motor neurophysiology. There were large response delays during trials where a subcomponent of an upcoming bimanual response was cued to stop in conditions where the anticipated action of the hands were synchronous, but not when asynchronous. Response delays reflected the integration of actions of both hands into a unitary response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

Article Neurosciences

Decoupling countermands nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Corey G. Wadsley, John Cirillo, Arne Nieuwenhuys, Winston D. Byblow

Summary: This study identified neural signatures of response preparation and inhibition during selective stopping of coupled and decoupled bimanual responses. Stopping was more selective for decoupled responses and supported by lateralized sensorimotor mu and beta power during response preparation. These findings provide valuable insights into the functional significance of decoupling for cognitive control in the form of selective stopping.

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY (2022)

Article Neurosciences

Stopping Interference in Response Inhibition: Behavioral and Neural Signatures of Selective Stopping

Corey G. Wadsley, John Cirillo, Arne Nieuwenhuys, Winston D. Byblow

Summary: Response inhibition is crucial for terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing responses, with selective stopping being a complex form of this inhibition. The stopping interference effect, characterized by response delays on unstopped effectors, may result from both selective and nonselective response inhibition processes. This effect can be influenced by factors such as response conflict, task familiarity, and functional coupling.

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE (2022)

Article Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism

Response Inhibition Under Emotional and Physical Stress

Laura Voigt, Corey G. Wadsley, Marie O. Frenkel, Arne Nieuwenhuys

Summary: This study investigated how acute threat and vigorous exercise intensity interact to influence response inhibition. The results showed that mild levels of task-relevant emotional stress and high levels of physical stress did not significantly alter response inhibition performance. This suggests that response inhibition is relatively robust against mild levels of emotional stress and high levels of physical stress.

SPORT EXERCISE AND PERFORMANCE PSYCHOLOGY (2022)

Article Neurosciences

Proactive interhemispheric disinhibition supports response preparation during selective stopping

Corey G. Wadsley, John Cirillo, Arne Nieuwenhuys, Winston D. Byblow

Summary: This study aimed to investigate the role of interhemispheric primary motor cortex (M1-M1) influences during selective stopping with proactive cueing. The results showed that increased stopping uncertainty led to slower response times and reduced stopping interference. Proactive response inhibition was characterized by a slower rate of rise and faster cancel time in electromyographical bursts during stopping. There was a reduction in muscle excitability when the left hand was cued to stop, but there was no reinstatement of interhemispheric inhibition between the motor cortices.

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE (2023)

Article Neurosciences

Comparing anticipatory and stop-signal response inhibition with a novel, open-source selective stopping toolbox

Corey G. Wadsley, John Cirillo, Arne Nieuwenhuys, Winston D. Byblow

Summary: This study provides a freely available Selective Stopping Toolbox (SeleST) to investigate selective stopping using either anticipatory or stop-signal task variants. The results suggest that selective stopping can be successfully investigated with either anticipatory or stop-signal paradigms in SeleST. The anticipatory paradigm should be used when strict control of response times is desired, while the stop-signal paradigm should be used when it is desired to estimate stop-signal reaction time with the independent race model.

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH (2023)

Article Neurosciences

A global pause generates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Corey G. Wadsley, John Cirillo, Arne Nieuwenhuys, Winston D. Byblow

Summary: This study aimed to determine whether nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping is the result of a global pause process or a nonselective cancel process. In a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm, participants showed delayed responses in the non-signaled hand during selective ignore and stop trials, indicating that stopping-interference cannot solely be attributed to attentional capture. Furthermore, a stimulus-nonselective increase in frontocentral beta-bursts occurred during stop and ignore trials. These findings suggest that nonselective response inhibition primarily arises from a nonselective pause process, but does not fully explain the stopping-interference effect.

CEREBRAL CORTEX (2023)

Article Psychology, Mathematical

OSARI, an Open-Source Anticipated Response Inhibition Task

Jason L. He, Rebecca J. Hirst, Rohan Puri, James Coxon, Winston Byblow, Mark Hinder, Patrick Skippen, Dora Matzke, Andrew Heathcote, Corey G. Wadsley, Tim Silk, Christian Hyde, Dinisha Parmar, Ernest Pedapati, Donald L. Gilbert, David A. Huddleston, Stewart Mostofsky, Inge Leunissen, Hayley J. MacDonald, Nahian S. Chowdhury, Matthew Gretton, Tess Nikitenko, Bram Zandbelt, Luke Strickland, Nicolaas A. J. Puts

Summary: The stop-signal paradigm is commonly used in research on inhibitory control, with the most popular version being the 'choice-reaction' task and an alternative being the 'anticipated response inhibition' task. While the latter is gaining popularity and has some advantages, there are currently no openly available versions of it.

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS (2022)

No Data Available